7.  The applicant entered the employment of the Council of Ministers on 1 March 1991 as an “Adviser” in its “Local administration and regional policy” department. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of “Chief Adviser” in the same department. The applicant's employment obligations included, inter alia, (a) providing expert advice relating to the preparation of draft legislation and (b) preparing opinions on such texts. He was also involved in providing technical assistance for organising national and municipal elections.
8.  The applicant's employment contract was initially for an indefinite term. With an amendment of 22 February 1997 it was changed into a fixed term contract set to expire on 31 March 1997. The term of the said agreement was extended twice, the final term having been until 30 June 1997. The applicant's remuneration under the last agreement was 302,500 old Bulgarian levs (approximately 349 German marks at the relevant time).
9.  Following the expiration of the applicant's employment agreement on 30 June 1997 he continued going to work and fulfilling his employment obligations without any objections from his employer. The applicant considered therefore that his contract had been transformed into an employment agreement for an indefinite term (see paragraph 17 below).
10.  On 29 July 1997 the applicant was served with an order, dated 28 July 1997, for terminating his employment agreement as of 30 July 1997. The order was signed on behalf of the Minister of State Administration, instead of the Chief Secretary of the Council of Ministers, which was the competent officer, according to the applicant, in employment matters. The basis for terminating the employment agreement was the expiration of its term.
11.  On 21 September 1997 the applicant addressed a request to the Prime Minister petitioning him to reconsider the dismissal and to reappoint him. He received no response to his request.
12.  On 26 March 1998 the applicant initiated an action under the Administrative Procedure Act. He petitioned the court to declare the order for his dismissal null and void and to award him compensation for loss of income.
13.  The administrative proceedings went through two levels of jurisdiction. With a final decision of 30 October 1998 the extended panel of the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the applicant's action. The courts found that the order for his dismissal was not an administrative act of the type that could be challenged under the Administrative Procedure Act and that he should have initiated a civil action instead.
14.  In the meantime, on 14 July 1998 the applicant initiated civil proceedings. He petitioned the courts to recognise the continued existence of an employment agreement, to declare the order for his dismissal null and void, to order that he be granted access to his workplace and to award him compensation for loss of income during the time he had been denied such access.
15.  With a final decision of 19 October 1999 the Supreme Court of Cassation rejected all but one of the applicant's claims – for loss of income during the period he was denied access to his workplace. In respect of the other claims, the courts found that the applicant should instead have initiated an action for unfair dismissal under Article 344 of the Labour Code (the “Code”) and should have done so prior to the expiration of the six‑month statutory deadline on 30 January 1998. The courts recognised that prior to the judgment of the Constitutional Court of 30 April 1998 the applicant had been barred under Article 360 § 2 (2) of the Code from initiating such an action for unfair dismissal. However, they reasoned that if he had nevertheless initiated such an action, the courts before which the case would have been pending on 30 April 1998 might have taken into account the judgment of the Constitutional Court and might have examined the case on the merits.
16.  The remainder of the applicant's civil action, in respect of his claim for loss of income during the period he was denied access to his workplace, was examined by three levels of jurisdiction. With a final judgment of 25 September 2003 the Supreme Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant's claim. The courts found that in so far as the dismissal of the applicant had never been proven to be unfair in any other set of proceedings, there was no obligation on the part of his previous employer to grant him access to his former workplace after 30 July 1997 and, therefore, that it was not liable to pay him compensation for loss of income for having failed to do so. The Supreme Court of Cassation recognised that the applicant had not been afforded the right to challenge his dismissal prior to the judgment of Constitutional Court but reasoned that he had been aware of that restriction at the time he entered Government employment.